From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feeney v. Licari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1987
131 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Summary

applying New York law, which employs the transactional test

Summary of this case from Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Gordon

Opinion

June 8, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of res judicata is granted, and that branch of the motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees is denied.

The judgment issued by the District Court of the County of Suffolk, Third Judicial District, in a previous action based upon the same transaction and alleging similar facts as the complaint in this action was entered on the plaintiff's default (see, CPLR 3215 [a]). Since a default judgment is a judgment on the merits (see, Walston Co. v Klein, 44 Misc.2d 607, 608, affd 24 A.D.2d 559; Siegel, N Y Prac § 451, at 597), the instant action must be dismissed on the ground of res judicata (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). In his complaint in this action the plaintiff also asserted a cause of action for attorneys' fees not pleaded in the previous action but which could have been pleaded in that action. Thus, that cause of action is also precluded by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Gargiulo v Oppenheim, 95 A.D.2d 484, 492, affd 63 N.Y.2d 843).

With respect to the defendants' demand for attorneys' fees, it is well settled that attorneys' fees may not be awarded in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing their recovery, or an agreement or stipulation to that effect by the parties (see, Donn v Sowers, 103 A.D.2d 734, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 609), and the instant suit does not fall within the narrow exception to the general rule set out in Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co. ( 47 N.Y.2d 12); nor are the defendants entitled to attorneys' fees as a sanction (Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Feeney v. Licari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1987
131 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

applying New York law, which employs the transactional test

Summary of this case from Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Gordon
Case details for

Feeney v. Licari

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH R. FEENEY, Respondent, v. FRANK LICARI, Doing Business as SENGA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 8, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Wendy v. Spector

The claim for a postjudgment attorneys' fee in a prior related action was not brought to a final conclusion,…

Vincente v. LM Dev., L.L.C.

Plaintiff's instant claims against defendants LM, NPHDF, Chase and Danois are based on the same transaction…